by James Cleaveland
May 12 2013

The city of Keene has filed a lawsuit against myself and several other people regarding robin hooding (Respondents). Basically, the city wants the court to issue a “preliminary” and “permanent” injunction “restraining Respondents, or anyone under their direction, supervision, employment, or control, from coming within a safety zone of fifty (50) feet of any PEO [Parking Enforcement Officer] while that PEO is on duty.” Additionally, the city wants to stop us “from video recording, within a safety zone of fifty (50) feet,” and “from communicating with any PEO.”

The city alleges that “Respondents have repeatedly video recorded, interfered with, taunted, and intimidated PEOs during the performance of their employment duties,” which is ridiculous for several reasons, most importantly, according to the job description for a city of Keene parking enforcer, “This position requires a person” to “relate with the general public” and “Endure verbal and mental abuse when confronted with the hostile views and opinions of the public and other individuals often encountered in an antagonistic environment.”

When the city first hired Peter Thomas (at a cost of $1,339.67) to film Robin Hooders, I responded to Keene police chief Ken Meola regarding requests very similar to ones listed in the injunction with this letter. The most important part of the letter was point 7 where I stated, “Robin Hooding is not about the parking enforcers. If it were about them, I could have made countless videos showing them violating laws (jaywalking, traffic violations, etc), acting rude, and any other mistakes they have made. Additionally, I do not interact with any of the enforcers when they are not on duty. I don’t follow them home or try to find them off duty. Once again, Robin Hooding is about saving people from getting parking tickets.”

This move by the city is a validation of how effective robin hooding has been in Keene with ALL of the parking enforcement officers stating that “Since December 2012, when this activity started, it has been noted that I have written less tickets than in the preceding time period.”

This case also validates that robin hooding and all activities performed by people robin hooding are perfectly legal because the city (Petitioner) admits, “Petitioner has no adequate alternate remedy at law.” Further, the city has resorted to a civil case against me and others instead of a criminal one providing more evidence that no criminal actions were committed.

I plan to address each of the case’s points in my answer to this lawsuit which I will post here.